Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump · ¶151

Seeking support for its sweeping new exception, the dissent points to three main precedents. Post, at 374–376, 381–384. I do not see how any of them might sustain its view. The first, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U. S. 507 (2004), concerned the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), legislation which authorized the President to use “all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons” responsible for the September 11, 2001, attacks. Id., at 510 (plurality opinion) (internal quotation marks omitted). The dissent highlights the principal opinion's conclusion that the AUMF allowed the President to detain enemy combatants even though the law did not mention that power expressly. Id., at 510, 516–517. And from this, the dissent draws the inference that any statute addressing foreign affairs should be exempt from scrutiny under the major questions…

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.